Données administratives d'une ressource

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about the sensitive nature of the data (salary, HR info) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like required permissions or response structure. Given the strong annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence. The Args/Returns structure is clear, though the Returns line ('Données administratives et RH de la ressource') is largely redundant with the opening sentence, slightly reducing efficiency.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple get-by-id tool with strong annotations and a complete schema, the description provides sufficient context by listing example fields (salary, daily rate, HR info). Without an output schema, it could be more specific about the full return structure, but given the tool's simplicity, the description is reasonably complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has a single parameter (id) with a detailed description ('Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager (numérique)') and 100% schema coverage. The tool description merely restates 'ID de la ressource' without adding meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves administrative information of a resource, with specific examples (salaire, TJM, coût journalier, informations RH). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like boond_resources_technical_data or boond_resources_information, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use for accessing administrative/HR data about a resource, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus related tools such as boond_resources_information or boond_resources_technical_data. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.